This opinion editorial by Rick Dunham was originally published in The Philadelphia Inquirer and on their website, Philly.com. It is reposted here by permission.

Rick Dunham is the president of Dunham+Co., which advises charities, and the author of Secure: Discovering True Security in Turbulent Financial Times

In a rather bizarre line of reasoning, President Obama claimed at the recent National Prayer Breakfast that Jesus would favor his plan to increase taxes on the rich. His logic is based on two passages in the Bible:

“To whom much has been given, much is required” (Luke 12:48)

“Love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matthew 22:39)

There’s no doubt that Jesus cared for the down and out. He healed the sick, fed the hungry, and poured his life out for the outcasts of society. And his teaching was filled with challenges to his followers to do the same. Obama is right; Jesus does want us to love our neighbor as ourselves.

But that raises the question of who exactly is our neighbor. Evidently, Obama, who releases his proposed budget Monday, believes it is the bloated government bureaucracy that is massively in debt. Actually, I don’t believe Jesus had the government in mind when he said “neighbor.”

In Luke 10, Jesus tells us what he meant by neighbor in the story of the Good Samaritan. He makes it clear that it is the person we see in need whom we have the capacity to help. That’s our neighbor, not Uncle Sam.

But what about the rich? How did Jesus view their responsibility? We get an idea in a conversation he had with a very rich man.

The rich man asked what he needed to do to inherit eternal life. Jesus gave him a list of commandments to keep, and in response the rich man said he had kept all the commandments since he was a boy. The passage goes on to say:

“When Jesus heard this, He said to him, ‘You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.’ When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth” (Luke 18:22-23).

The man had come to trust his wealth for his security. Jesus knew money had become his god, so he challenged the man to give it up and come follow him. Jesus wanted the man to place his faith in him rather than the man’s wealth.

And where did Jesus say to give it? He didn’t encourage him to pay more taxes to the government, but to give it to the poor.

If the president really wants to follow in the footsteps of Jesus, he ought to find ways to increase the incentive for the rich to give more to charitable organizations that effectively serve the poor. In fact, in a recent national poll conducted by our company, three out of four Americans indicated they believe that private charities are better at promoting social good than the government.

So, President Obama, if you are truly concerned about the poor and needy, if you really want to see the rich share their wealth more generously to benefit those who are struggling, then not only should you retain the current charitable tax deduction for households making $200,000 or more; you should find new and creative ways to encourage even greater philanthropy to support the charities that do social good.

That’s how you can encourage those to whom much has been given to do even more to love their neighbors as themselves.

People tend to confuse power and leadership. And true leadership isn’t in it for the power but for the people. I also believe the paradigm of what is most commonly called “servant leadership” falls short of God’s highest form of leadership. Let me explain what I mean by that.

First, let’s talk about servant leadership. Servant leadership is based primarily on the passage I mentioned in my last post, Matthew 20:20-28, with particular attention on verses 25-28.

“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

It’s easy to see that Jesus calls for a type of leadership that flips its attention from the power of its authority to the people under that authority, which is what we looked at in my last post. As I mentioned, servant leadership ascribes the role of leading to that of one who puts as a priority the service of those under his or her authority rather than the exercise of power.

While this type of leadership is important, I believe it’s a second tier of leadership, not the ultimate type of leadership, that Jesus calls us to. If you read on, you will read the most radical statement possible on leadership, and that is to be a “slave” not a servant. And there is a huge difference.

The word “servant” in the Greek is diakonos. It’s the word we use for the role of “deacon” as set up by the apostles in Acts chapter 6. A deacon is one who is committed to serve and care for the needs of others.

But Jesus doesn’t stop there. He takes it a step further. He tells us that to be the greatest leader we must be a bond-slave, which in the Greek is the word doulos. A bond-slave is one who is bound to the service of his or her master. Service isn’t voluntary, it is mandatory. It’s the word used by Paul in Philippians 2:5-8:

“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”

The word to describe Jesus is that of a bond-slave. He willingly made Himself subject to death, to which He became obedient.

Bond-slaves by definition understand that they are not their own, but are subjects of their master to whom they owe their complete allegiance. Again, service is not optional but mandatory.

The highest form of leadership is not servant leadership. The highest form of leadership is what I call sacrificial leadership. I’m suggesting this level of leadership certainly understands that the role of leadership isn’t about power, control, and how those under their authority can serve their purposes. But it goes beyond that.

First, it does as Christ did and empties oneself. Of what? Of personal glory. Of the privilege of position. Of an agenda that serves oneself. Of an expectation that others will serve you.

Second, it is willing to sacrifice for the benefit of those being led. Not just a little. But at great personal cost.

Sacrificial leadership understands that the highest form of leadership doesn’t just serve those under the leader’s authority but is subject to the needs and success of those for whom they are responsible. It’s a mentality that isn’t just about serving those under their leadership, but rather is willing to sacrifice oneself – even at a very significant cost – to help those under their leadership achieve success.

For Christ, the cost was His life. At any time, He could have bailed out. But He didn’t. Because His purpose in coming to earth was “to serve and to give His life a ransom for many.” That is the standard Christ set for the highest form of leadership – sacrificial leadership.

Practically, this means a completely different mindset than even servant leadership. It means that the success of those under your charge is so important to you, that you are willing to sacrifice your time, your personal agenda, the spotlight… whatever it takes. And it means those whom you lead know that their highest good is your greatest priority and they see that demonstrated in what you are willing to sacrifice on their behalf.

It was refreshing and energizing to see many of you, our clients and ministry partners, at Dunham+Company’s annual Summit in Scottsdale, AZ in early January. Learning together, connecting, and collaborating with peers is a terrific way to begin the adventure of a new year. It brings us all comfort to know that we are not laboring in our respective noble quests alone, and that others face similar challenges and opportunities as we launch boldly into the ministry landscape before us.

With so many options to do good and impact lives in 2019, it can be overwhelming to consider all the ways we can advance our mission.

As I look at the priorities for Dunham+Company in 2019, I challenge you to join me in the process of determining what is going to move the needle most at your organization.

My friend and trusted counsel, Martin West, asks an incredibly important and refining question when faced with a multitude of worthy ways to invest an organization’s time and resources, “What are the two or three things that, if we focused on now, would move us most rapidly towards accomplishing the goals we’ve set forth for 2019?”

This question presumes that you have set clear goals for your ministry in 2019. If that is not the case yet, this needs to occupy the number one position on your priority list.

If you have indeed set tangible and measurable goals for this year, then now is the perfect time to work with your team to prioritize your efforts around the activities that will move your organization most rapidly towards those objectives – and then to stay after those priorities until the job is complete.

It sounds simple, right? It is not. It requires a clear vision and agreement about what is needed and possible. It requires collaboration, cooperation, and commitment. I assure you though, this investment of energy in the planning and focusing on prioritized goals will be the key to your success.

While it is tempting to outline a complex set of tasks aimed at the achievement of dozens of “good goals,” that as leaders makes us feel like we’ve leveraged every opportunity and faithfully (and simultaneously) worked toward each possible worthy objective, it is just not practical or wise.

More often than not, those who have refined their thinking towards a few key objectives end up making the most progress in the long run.

Energy focused is much more powerful than energy diffused… for both you and your team.

As you continue your good work here in the early part of 2019, my encouragement is to ensure that you have a rock solid grasp of your few key goals for the year and that you work with your team right away to outline tangible steps in order to make the most progress possible towards them now. Who knows, perhaps that focused energy will allow you to accomplish your goals more rapidly? And when that hill has been conquered, you can confidently take the next!

Bots are all the talk around of Facebook when it comes to engaging with people most directly. While bots can do a variety of things, in this video, I share with you what I believe to be the most undervalued but the most powerful feature of Messenger bots which we should start paying more attention to.

Christian ministries in Australia are experiencing some significant challenges – including challenges to the perception of ‘public benefit’ and tax-exempt status. With religious freedom also a very hot topic, along with significant changes to the fundraising landscape, many ministries are finding it difficult to plan for future Gospel and ministry work.

In recent not-for-profit forums there have been firm recommendations for Christian ministries to ‘secularise’ in order to survive, encouraging them to update their vision and mission so it’s more accessible to those who don’t appreciate the ‘on the nose’ faith elements.

We’ve heard a fundraising masterclass speaker boldly assert that she ‘secularised’ a major church welfare agency so that they could raise more money. Yes, more money means we can do more good work – but, when money-focused thinking takes over, it’s no wonder mission-drift looks so tempting.

If you’ll indulge me for a moment, let’s remember what happened when Moses called God’s people to give to help build His sanctuary. In Exodus 36, you’ll read that a decree was later sent out to tell the people to stop giving because there was “more than enough” to do all the work. Moral of the story: When the hearts of God’s people are given to Him, there is more than enough to do all the work.

So, it’s time to start a counter-movement to stop the drift and demonstrate there’s a better way. Not a secular way, but God’s good way.

So, if you have influence in shaping the direction of a Christian ministry – as a board member, leader, staff member, donor or volunteer – stay true to the unique mission God has called you to. Be motivated by your faith, not ashamed of it. At some point you’ll be tempted to sell out of the Jesus story for the promise of financial security. But remember that Judas’ 30 pieces of silver were just the start of that cautionary tale.

Then, as you approach a key giving time of year, take a moment to consider how you prioritise your giving. When you look at all you have, remember God has put it into your trust. And for the steward to whom much is given (yes, that’s you) much is expected. After all, anyone can give to charities who just do good work. But if Christians don’t give their hearts to unique God-breathed ministry… who will?

The same challenges that exist for a regular radio show – distractions and competition – are the main obstacles to overcome with fundraising on Christian radio, but they are then coupled with a poor value proposition and a failure to effectively communicate the support model throughout the year.

I think we need to be realistic about the level of access, engagement, and exclusive content we provide our monthly donors. For $8 a month, I have access to the Netflix entertainment library. For $100 a year I have Amazon Prime, giving me their audio and video inventory, as well as the actual Prime benefits. Despite the value, I still debate renewing each of these because I have a family budget. However, we are asking listeners to give $30 or $40/mo. and they have no enhanced experience in any way, despite their sacrifice. It is costing them much more, for far less, and then we wonder why our cancellation rates are as high as they are?

I am aware that we are a ministry, and the others are businesses, yet fewer and fewer consumers of media are drawing a distinction between us and them. They expect more, right or wrong. I’m not drawing a moral distinction, just sharing what the research tells us. We have access and technology to provide them with more … and we often don’t. The idea that “you’ll simply feel good knowing you gave” isn’t going to sustain the donor, especially if you’re telling them “when you hear a story of a changed life, you can know God used you to do that” and then never playing stories of changed lives outside of a fundraiser. If the model fails, that’s on us as an industry.

Finally, if you want to reach your audience, and give yourself the best chance to reach your financial needs, then you should be creatively crediting them for the on-air ministry and community impact that is happening throughout the year.

It’s still incredibly surprising to me how many stations fail to share their appreciation in an ongoing way, fail to explain to their new cume how their ministry, and fail to provide consistent, tangible proof of ministry outside of their Sharathons.

Therefore, I ask the question: are stations struggling to get funding because the marketplace is changing or they have a poor fundraising strategy, or is it because they are actually not doing ministry in the community and giving their audience what they actually want and expect on the air every day? That question isn’t asked by management nearly enough.

What is the best fundraising advice you’ve been given? The worst?

Best fundraising advice: don’t be afraid to fail, repeatedly. You can do everything right and it still may not work. Then you get a new quarter hour and can start over. Treat your brain and heart like a white board and have a short memory!

One of the things a leader needs to be willing to do is blow things up. Not literally, of course, but figuratively.

Here’s what I mean.

Often organizations develop a bit like an amoeba, adding a position here, another position there, and before you know it you have this strange looking thing that doesn’t function as it should. It becomes bloated, inefficient, and ineffective.

That’s when you need to be willing to blow things up and rebuild your organization, department, or division to make it work better.

Right now, we have a division in our company that resembles a bit of an amoeba. And it’s delivering below expectations and unprofitable. We could try and use some touch-up paint here or knock out a ding there, but at the end of the day, that won’t solve the problem.

So the head of this division is blowing it up.

Our goal is to redefine and restructure roles that more accurately reflect what this division needs to deliver and decide what roles need to be added. And we are tearing apart our work process and rebuilding it from the ground up.

This is hard work and it’s terribly inconvenient.

You have to be driven to not settle for the norm… to stop doing business as usual. Instead, you need to be willing to do the hard yards of rethinking how to deliver best-of-class work and, if necessary, then blow up what you currently have and rebuild it to make that best-of-class work a reality.

If your area of responsibility is underperforming, do you have the guts to blow it up?

Recently, I was in a meeting where a fundraiser exclaimed, “Our donors are fatigued; we are clearly communicating too much”. My response was the same as the many times I have heard a similar sentiment from database managers to CEOs… regularity isn’t the problem; it’s the relevance that matters.

The problem with the concept of donor fatigue is that it blames the donor for being tired rather than the organisation that’s communicating with them. Donors love receiving communication that affirms the impact of their giving, but they don’t like irrelevant communication.

If a relationship isn’t working, it’s vital we discover why. If a donor is feeling disconnected, what made them feel that way? Perhaps you:

• Talked constantly about yourself as an organisation rather than connecting them with their impact?

• Got bored with your own brand and forgot why they partnered in the first place?

• We’re too busy to thank them, even though they had just entrusted you with their investment?

Ultimately, if we get serious as fundraisers, we need to believe that donor fatigue doesn’t exist – it’s just our poor practice dressed up as somebody else’s fault.

Let’s see it from this perspective: They’re not fatigued by their own doing, but we’ve worn them out, and the responsibility sits with us for breaking that connection.

Although frequency is often blamed for fatigue, we’ve known organisations that have sent multiple emails every day – and some have the lowest unsubscribe rates, while others have had scores of donors unsubscribing from their annual appeal because they were sending too much.

Is it too much to receive one fundraising appeal a year? No. Believing this concept is more likely if there’s an irrelevant message, or if the donor completely forgot about that cause due to the length of time between their interactions.

To keep your message relevant, consider the following:

1. Deliver on your value proposition

Are you delivering on what they signed up for? If you say you’re going to deliver weekly good news, make sure that every week you deliver good news. If you say you’re going to give a monthly report on where their donation goes, make sure you do that – and, if you do, know that this communication for the most part is well received.

2. Frequency

Frequent communication is important and positive. Have an overarching communication plan that takes into account every individual communication piece from your organisation and how it fits into your overall strategy. Also consider messages coming from outside your department – receipting, local updates, newsletters, CEO emails – because they all count in a donor experience. Make sure you have them covered.

3. Squeaky wheels should not dictate your strategy

Don’t let one complaint, or one staff member with a strong opinion, determine what’s working and what’s not. One complaint doesn’t equal donor fatigue. If your fundraising and ministry is growing, then stay committed to your outcomes and allow for individuals who are just having a bad day.

Collectively, can we agree to not blame the donors anymore, or accuse them of being fatigued? Let’s take responsibility and make sure we’re giving them what they need to stay connected.

More Insights from Dunham+Company: Four Things To Do To Keep From Being Too Formulaic

Technology continues to change, but nonprofits invariably struggle with finding the proper role for technology in their fundraising programs.

Sixteen years ago, when we first launched our strategic marketing and fundraising agency, Dunham+Company, many nonprofits were deep in the first wave of the digital revolution. In addition to raising donor support through traditional channels like direct mail, radio, television, and the telephone, nonprofits and churches had to face the reality that their constituencies were increasingly living (and giving) online.

To engage supporters effectively meant organizations were forced to do more than dabble with websites, email, and social media. Instead they needed to “move in” to those technology spaces, understand and adapt to them, and leverage their many advantages and efficiencies.

As the topic of cryptocurrency becomes part of mainstream conversation in America, I see a correlation to the early days of online giving and the questions organizations are asking themselves today:

• What the heck is cryptocurrency?

• Is this new opportunity real? Is it safe?

• Should we participate? If so, when?

• Will we be able to use this to increase donations for our organization?

Broadly defined, cryptocurrency is a digital or virtual currency that uses encryption for security to issue and transfer units of currency independent of a central bank. Like any financial instrument, it poses both positive opportunities for the exchange of value between consumers and organizations, and provides yet another platform for misuse.

Conversely, possible risks like currency volatility, lack of regulation, and cyber security pose practical issues for consideration when determining if and when your organization should be working towards having the capacity to receive cryptocurrency donations or in exchange for products and services.

As Dunham+Company’s Chief Strategist of Social Media+Innovation, Nils Smith, unpacks in his book, Crypto for Good, cryptocurrency is likely to first be widely accepted in third world countries and places where established currencies aren’t stable. Additionally, in time, cryptocurrency may bridge the gap between supporters and organizations around the globe that can accomplish impactful work, making wealth transfer quick, easy, and efficient.

Currently, several U.S.-based nonprofits and ministries are successfully accepting donations via cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. Other organizations are developing robust exchanges and platforms to help facilitate the acceptance of cryptocurrency as seamlessly as U.S. dollars.

Is it time for your organization to move quickly and prepare to accept cryptocurrency? Possibly.

One thing is certain, cryptocurrency isn’t merely an interesting idea. It’s not a flash-in-the-pan financial trend. While not made of physical material like coins and paper money, cryptocurrency is real and it is coming to the marketplace.

Now is the time for forward-thinking organizations to become educated on the risks and rewards of engaging cryptocurrency.

The team and I at Dunham+Company will continue to run before our partners to assess their practical applications of new communications platforms and technologies that will help connect them with constituents, customers, and donors that support them.

I look forward to sharing tips, trends, and practical insights from our real-world work about this and other strategic opportunities in future features.